If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

it's not a functional design," he said. "It was modern for its time, but the rooms were actually cut into pie-shaped rooms so they weren't very functional. As the police department grew bigger, the building really started to become cramped."

so long as they knock down the walls facing the sidewalk and alter the building such that it 's a functional part of the city, then they can save it.

"It has shown me that everything is illuminated in the light of the past"
Jonathan Safran Foer

so long as they knock down the walls facing the sidewalk and alter the building such that it 's a functional part of the city, then they can save it.

Agreed. Good architecture, terrible urban design.

Originally Posted by mixiboi

They did a ok job with the hospital across the street..they can do something with that building too..

They did OK with re-cladding and re-using it, but it still turns its back on the park with a parking lot. Granted, the park wasn't what it is now when they renovated, but I'd hope for more from Roundhouse 2.0.

street life killer. would love to see it replaced with something that actually fills out the block. one thing that area does not need more of is extra open space. it needs street walls and street amenities.

if the facade is made of modular structural components, possibly it could be disassembled and reconstituted in a more appropriate setting elsewhere, say king of prussia or maybe even a college campus.

pros: innovative structural concept. period. cons: awful architecture. awful urban planning. in other words, typical mid 20th century urban redevelopment. about as inspiring as soviet or fascist architecture from the same era.

I don't understand the defense of architecture on aesthetic grounds if it sucks at what it was commissioned and built (with public money) to do. If an architect does a poor job of addressing the needs of the client, but manages to incorporate a couple of gimmick design elements, then he's done a poor job of being an architect. It's like saying "He's a brilliant chef, even if the food he makes gives everyone crippling diarrhea."

I don't understand the defense of architecture on aesthetic grounds if it sucks at what it was commissioned and built (with public money) to do. If an architect does a poor job of addressing the needs of the client, but manages to incorporate a couple of gimmick design elements, then he's done a poor job of being an architect. It's like saying "He's a brilliant chef, even if the food he makes gives everyone crippling diarrhea."

Well that's the "form follows function" theory of modernism in architecture. But sometimes, not necessarily in this case, something can simply be beautiful and worth saving because it is beautiful even if the function element isn't great.

Well that's the "form follows function" theory of modernism in architecture. But sometimes, not necessarily in this case, something can simply be beautiful and worth saving because it is beautiful even if the function element isn't great.

Apparently, but I was responding to this general question - "I don't understand the defense of architecture on aesthetic grounds if it sucks at what it was commissioned and built (with public money) to do"

Apparently, but I was responding to this general question - "I don't understand the defense of architecture on aesthetic grounds if it sucks at what it was commissioned and built (with public money) to do"

Sorry, was just making a cheeky comment about the building being beautiful.

street life killer. would love to see it replaced with something that actually fills out the block. one thing that area does not need more of is extra open space. it needs street walls and street amenities.

if the facade is made of modular structural components, possibly it could be disassembled and reconstituted in a more appropriate setting elsewhere, say king of prussia or maybe even a college campus.

pros: innovative structural concept. period. cons: awful architecture. awful urban planning. in other words, typical mid 20th century urban redevelopment. about as inspiring as soviet or fascist architecture from the same era.

Agreed. The surface lots surrounding it and dead space would have to be repurposed in some creative way to encourage pedestrian use. A very tall order.